Progressive Viewpoints

New Deal for U.S. Climate Policy?

I've generally considered the market mix of carbon cap-and-trade with limits based on science a good mechanism, but subject to bad implementation.  I don't see the Senate doing a good job implementing it as special interests have undermined it by giving away instead of marketing permits, etc.

While a carbon tax is simpler its price is generally set by Congress which has a bad track record in setting the prices right.

So this new proposal might be a way to move forward reasonably.  (Actually similar to something Al Gore proposed years ago of having most of the fees rebated to taxpayers on a per-person basis.)

New Deal for U.S. Climate Policy? « The Baseline Scenario.

Last Friday, Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) unveiled the CLEAR (Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal) Act, which could break the impasse in the debate over U.S. policy on climate change (McClatchy coverage is here.)

CLEAR has won a favorable reception from a broad swath of the political spectrum, ranging from ExxonMobil to Friends of the Earth. The scroll of supportive statements on Cantwell’s website includes praise from the AARP, the American Enterprise Institute, former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich, Alaska’s Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, and MoveOn.org.

CLEAR is a “100-75-25-0” policy:

• 100% of the permits to bring fossil carbon into the U.S. economy will be auctioned from day one – there are no permit giveaways.
• 75% of the auction revenue is returned directly to the public as equal per person dividends.
• 25% of the auction revenue is devoted to investments in energy efficiency, clean energy, adaptation to climate change, and assistance for sectors hurt by the transition from the fossil-fueled economy.
• Zero offsets are allowed: polluters cannot avoid curbing use of fossil fuels by paying someone else to ostensibly clean up after them.

The Cantwell-Collins bill also strictly limits the buying and selling of permits to prevent carbon market speculation and profiteering.

The Prius of the sky

The Prius of the sky - James Fallows:

A contest for fuel-efficient small airplanes has a winner: a modified VariEze that gets 45 mpg at over 200 MPH with two people aboard, and nearly 100 mpg at a lower "maximum range" speed.

Clip: The New Sputnik

Op-Ed Columnist - The New Sputnik - NYTimes.com.

The view of China in the U.S. Congress — that China is going to try to leapfrog us by out-polluting us — is out of date. It’s going to try to out-green us. Right now, China is focused on low-cost manufacturing of solar, wind and batteries and building the world’s biggest market for these products. It still badly lags U.S. innovation. But research will follow the market. America’s premier solar equipment maker, Applied Materials, is about to open the world’s largest privately funded solar research facility — in Xian, China.

“If they invest in 21st-century technologies and we invest in 20th-century technologies, they’ll win,” says David Sandalow, the assistant secretary of energy for policy. “If we both invest in 21st-century technologies, challenging each other, we all win.”

Clip: Key Senators and Paul Krugman Call for Tariffs on High Carbon Footprint Products

Key Senators and Paul Krugman Call for Tariffs on High Carbon Footprint Products | OurFuture.org.

Creating a system of global trade that is sustainable and allows all countries including the United States to flourish is necessary for a global economic recovery. To do this, we must enact strong laws that don't allow one country to cheat the other by polluting their way to low prices.

Some argue that such measures, such as putting a tariff on products with a high carbon footprint are protectionists and harmful. However, as Steelworkers President Leo Gerard argues today in a must-read New York Times piece defending the decision of his union to call for enforcement of trade laws on tire and paper imports: “Anybody who believes we have a rule-based system, but we shouldn’t enforce the laws, they’re the ones jeopardizing the global trading system.”

Without a commitment to live up to—and a precedent of enforcing—agreements, any climate change treaty signed at Copenhagen or at future summits won't be worth the paper it is printed on.

Anti-green economics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Anti-green economics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com:

Opponents of a policy change [to address global warming] generally believe that market economies are wonderful things, able to adapt to just about anything — anything, that is, except a government policy that puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions.  Limits on the world supply of oil, land, water — no problem.  Limits on the amount of CO2 we can emit — total disaster.

Funny how that is.

Obama and the Progressive Movement Open Left:: Obama and the Progressive Movement

Open Left:: Obama and the Progressive Movement      :

But we should be very clear: Obama has decided to cast his lot with those of us who have been fighting for big, transformative change.  If he succeeds, we succeed, and if he fails, we fail - and we fail for at least another generation, because no Democrat will take big risks again for a very long time if Obama loses this gamble. 

2009 is the year.  This is the moment when progressives, and America, show whether we can live up to the heroes of our history.  Progressives in the past have ended slavery and Jim Crow, given women and minorities and the poor the right to vote, created the National Parks System, made dramatic improvements in cleaning up our air and water, and launched transformational programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Head Start.  Barack Obama has boldly announced his ambition to join those historic heroes and create another Big Change Moment.  This year will decide whether Democrats in Congress and the progressive movement can help him deliver on that noble ambition.  Seize the day.

The mission continues

The mission continues:

[Oregon’s Governor Ted Kulongoski said,] "When it comes to fighting climate change, recently I’ve been hearing a chorus of naysayers singing a three-part harmony of – too costly, too burdensome, and too soon. But this chorus is out of tune – and out of touch – with Oregon’s future.”

Brian Schweitzer interview - War Room - Salon.com

Brian Schweitzer interview  - War Room - Salon.com:

A lot of people are talking about, if Obama wins, should healthcare come first or energy reform come first? I'm sure you have some thoughts on this.

Both. You can't pay for healthcare if we're sending a trillion dollars a year to dictators. Bottom line is, we gotta stop hemorrhaging, and the hemorrhaging is full-flung. Climate change, that is the long-term economic hit to our economy. The short-term economic hit to our economy is the largest transfer of wealth from one economy to another economy. So, create a new energy system in America, and create an energy system that's cleaner and greener and is designed by American engineers and built by American workers. Once we get that right we can afford to invest in healthcare and education.

Energy breakpoint - new hybrid vs old car

I've been wondering when the break-even point arrives for a more efficient car when you also count the cost of manufacturing and delivering the car (since for an old car, that is already a sunk cost).  Here's the answer.

Re: A Tree in Trade?:

Now let's compare the Prius with an older car. The Prius is rated to get 46 miles per gallon. Let's say your old car gets half as much, or 23 miles per gallon. The average car is now driven about 12,500 miles a year--sad but true, or truly sad. So if you bought a Prius instead of keeping your old car, over that 12,500-mile year you'd save 272 gallons of gas. Since burning a gallon of gas generates 19.5 pounds of carbon dioxide, the Prius would emit 5,300 pounds less CO2 per year than the old car. But because it requires the energy equivalent of about 1,000 gallons of gas to manufacture a Prius--which results in 19,400 pounds of carbon emissions--it would take four years before the Prius started to save that net amount of 5,300 pounds of CO2.

[Now he addresses an earlier question about planting a tree a year instead of getting a hybrid...]  In ten years you would have planted ten trees, which together would only absorb about 1,320 pounds of carbon, way less than the almost 32,000 pounds the Prius would've kept out of the air in that period. In the real world, as opposed to the imaginary enchanted forest of Prius haters, it would take 30 or 40 years for the trees to match the Prius's savings on CO2, assuming they all survive--which just might be too long to wait. Seems like we should be buying hybrids and planting trees or, better yet, not driving and planting trees.

Technorati Tags: global_warming

Re: How to Fight Climate Change Without Soaking the Middle Class

Peter Barnes (Working Assets) has proposed some interesting ideas around treating the “commons” as a public trust -- with the same duties to the future owners as non-profit endowments have today.  Take some of the politics out and make legally explicit the need to ensure long-term viability of the asset and share its value fairly.

Here's some interesting ideas on how to both increase the costs of carbon and ease the personal financial burden without de-incentivizing carbon reductions.  (Update: Q & A on the topic.)

Re: How to Fight Climate Change Without Soaking the Middle Class:

Fighting climate change is going to cost all of us money.  That’s because the price of dumping carbon into the atmosphere must, necessarily, rise. Whether the price rise is prompted by a tax or a cap makes no difference — we will all pay more.

Hardest hit will be low-income families — higher prices for energy and energy-intensive goods will impose a larger burden, relative to income, on them than on the rich.  But the middle class will also be soaked, and therein lies the political problem.

Any solution to climate change has to work for forty years or more.  A policy that soaks the middle class won’t last longer than a few election cycles.  The middle class must be protected. The question is how.

A few ideas are floating about.  One is to give tax rebates that offset higher energy prices.  Al Gore, for example, proposed in his Nobel acceptance speech that payroll tax refunds be given to every U.S. worker who pays them.
That’s a good start, but it leaves out too many people who are poor and middle class.  Nearly half of households in the bottom fifth would receive no payroll tax rebates because they have no taxable wages. Also excluded would be retirees, students, stay-at-home parents and workers outside the formal economy.

The simplest and fairest way to protect the poor and middle class is to give equal rebates to everyone. The money would come from either a carbon tax, or an auction of carbon emission permits.

Boyce and Riddle support a plan called Cap and Dividend.  Just as every Alaska resident receives an equal dividend from revenue from state oil leases, so every American would get an equal dividend from carbon permit auctions.  The dividends would be wired monthly into people’s bank accounts, much like Social Security payments.  They’d help families pay their monthly bills.

There are several nice features of such a plan.  One is that it’s automatic — as energy prices rise, so do dividends.  Another is that how you fare depends on what you do.  The more energy you use, the more you pay.  Since everyone gets the same amount back, you gain if you conserve and lose if you guzzle.  This is fair to everyone, whether rich or poor.  And it takes politicians off the hook for rising energy prices.  If voters complain, politicians can truthfully say, “The market sets prices, and you determine by your own energy use whether you gain or lose.  If you conserve, you come out ahead.”

There’s also an attractive premise behind Cap and Dividend: the atmosphere is a commons that belongs to everyone.  Those who pollute the commons should pay to do so.  And the income should go to the commons’ owners, one person, one share.

Although they don't discuss this, presumably the “trustees” would make clear that not all $$ go back as dividends.  Some needs to be invested in alternative energy sources in order help fund and accelerate the transition.